coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Zvolen.
5.  On 27 April 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Zvolen District Court. He claimed a sum of money which the defendant had failed to pay for the work done by the applicant.
6.  On 9 May 1995 the District Court gave an interim judgment confirming that the applicant’s claim was justified. The amount owed by the defendant remained to be determined in further proceedings.
7.  In the subsequent period the District Court experienced some difficulties in finding a suitable expert and obtaining an opinion from a specialised institute.
8.  On the applicant’s complaint, on 26 March 2003, the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The length of the proceedings was partly due to the factual complexity of the case. The applicant had not contributed to the overall length of the proceedings in a significant manner.
9.  The Constitutional Court awarded 20,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) (the equivalent of approximately 480 euros (EUR) at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delay and to reimburse the applicant’s costs.
10.  In the subsequent period the file was pending before the Banská Bystrica Regional Court for several months. The latter examined the amount of the fee to be paid to the specialised institute.
11.  On 3 May 2004 the District Court partially found in the applicant’s favour.
12.  Both the applicant and the defendant appealed.
13.  On 23 September 2005 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment on the merits. It quashed its part concerning the costs and remitted the matter to the District Court. The decision on the merits became final on 4 November 2005.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Gdynia.
6.  On 30 March 1993 the Chief of the Gdańsk Regional Police Headquarters (Komenda Wojewódzka Policji) dismissed the applicant from the police service (he was held accountable for accepting bribes).
7.  On 14 May 1993 the Chief of the Principal Police Headquarters (Komenda Główna Policji) upheld the decision.
8.  In November 1992 the Gdynia prosecution authorities charged the applicant, a serving police officer at the time, with numerous counts of fraud.
9.  On 30 June 1993 a bill of indictment against the applicant and eleven other suspects was lodged with the Gdynia District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
10.  The applicant did not submit any information concerning the court’s hearings between July 1993 and January 2005.
11.  Two hearings, scheduled on 1 February and 8 March 2005, were adjourned as some of the suspects failed to appear.
12.  Two hearings, scheduled on 12 April and 10 May 2005, were cancelled due to the judge’s illness.
13.  On 7 June 2005 the court severed the charges against the applicant and four other accused.
14.  Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on 12 and 26 July, 6 September, 12 October, 17 November and 12 December 2005, and 18 January, 15 February, 15 March, 19 April, 5 and 29 June and 19 July 2006.
15.  On 21 July 2006 the Gdynia District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to one year and six months’ imprisonment and a fine of 800 Polish zlotys (PLN).
16.  On 25 September 2006 the applicant appealed.
17.  On 11 December 2006 his appeal was dismissed by the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
18.  On 2 October 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) and asked for just satisfaction.
19.  On 13 November 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed his complaint. It limited its examination of the length of proceedings issue to the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act and stressed that the Act could not be applied to the protracted length of court proceedings occurring before that date. Having analysed the conduct of the District Court during the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act, the Regional Court found that there were no delays for which the District Court could be held responsible. Pointing to the complexity of the case and the voluminous documentation gathered in the proceedings it held that the proceedings had been conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the village of Ularci.
5.  On 31 July 1996 the applicant was dismissed for failing to prevent water flood of the employer’s premises. On 14 August 1996 the dismissal decision was upheld by the employer’s executive board.
6.  On 5 September 1996 the applicant brought a civil action against the employer requesting annulment of his dismissal and his reinstatement.
7.  The first-instance court postponed hearings listed on 17 December 1997, 27 January, 18 February, 13 April and 20 April 1998 due to the absence of the employer and witnesses.
8.  On 18 June 1998 the Štip Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s claim. It would appear that this decision was served on the applicant in December 2000, given that his appeal of 26 December 2000 was accepted as being submitted within the statutory fifteen-day time-limit. On 9 May 2001 the Štip Court of Appeal remitted the case for a renewed examination.
9.  After two on-site expert examinations and five adjournments, none of which was ordered on the applicant’s request, on 25 June 2003 the first-instance court annulled the dismissal decision.
10.  On 24 March 2004 the Štip Court of Appeal quashed that decision since liquidation proceedings were launched in respect to the employer.
11.  On 1 November 2004 the first-instance court terminated the proceedings. The applicant was advised to seek recognition of his claim in the liquidation proceedings.
12.  No further decisions were taken in these proceedings.
13.  On 20 July 2004 the applicant claimed (пријава за побарување) compensation for the pecuniary loss sustained as a result of the alleged unlawful dismissal. In support, he referred to the first- and second-instance courts’ decisions of 25 June 2003 and 24 March 2004.
14.  On 7 September 2004 the first-instance court recognised the applicant’s claim as having been established by a court decision.
15.  On 23 November 2004 the Štip Court of Appeal upheld an appeal of the employer’s receiver and quashed the lower court’s decision. It held that the applicant’s claim had not been established by any final decision nor had his application been based on any such decision. It further requested that fresh opinion be obtained from the receiver.
16.  On 11 February 2009 the first-instance court did not recognise the applicant’s claim and advised him to seek its determination in civil proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  On 6 July 2000 the applicant brought a civil action against his former employer, a Hungarian company called GE L.T. Rt., in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu), challenging his dismissal and seeking payment of his salary arrears and a bonus for outstanding work performance. On an unspecified date the defendant in the proceedings lodged a counter-claim, requesting that the applicant reimburse the bonus which the company had allegedly overpaid him.
6.  The Zagreb Municipal Court held hearings on 13 October 2000 and 21 February 2001. On 21 February 2001 the Zagreb Municipal Court declared the applicant’s claim inadmissible as being lodged out of time. On 5 February 2002 the Zagreb County Court quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
7.  On 15 April 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim in the part challenging his dismissal, as being lodged out of time. The applicant did not appeal against that decision, which thus became final. The proceedings continued in respect of the remainder of the applicant’s claims and the defendant’s counter-claim.
8.  On 20 July 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings. On 12 July 2006 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded the applicant 9,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to decide the case in the shortest time possible and not later than eight months after the publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court in the Official Gazette.
9.  The Constitutional Court’s decision was published in the Official Gazette on 28 August 2006 and the eight-month period expired on 29 April 2007.
10.  The proceedings are currently pending before the Zagreb Municipal Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Kumanovo.
5.  On 29 June 1995 the applicant applied for disability pension.
6.  On 30 January 1996 the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund (“the Fund”) rejected the applicant’s request for lack of jurisdiction (ненадлежeн).
7.  On 15 February 1996 the second-instance commission (“the Commission”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 2 February 1996.
8.  Between 30 October 1996 and 5 February 2003, the Supreme Court ordered retrial on four occasions. This latter decision was given on the applicant’s appeal on points of law lodged on 25 November 2000.
9.  On 23 April 2003 the Commission ordered the Fund to carry out an on-site examination so that to determine the validity of the applicant’s employment.
10.  On 4 December 2003 the Fund rejected the applicant’s request since he had no valid employment in the respondent State. On 30 January 2004 the Commission confirmed this decision. On 16 December 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law accepting the reasons given by the Fund.
6.  The first applicant, Mr Anders Synnelius, was born in 1957 and lives in Sollentuna. The second applicant, Edsbergs Taxi AB, a limited liability company, was owned by the first applicant and was dissolved following bankruptcy in 1999.
7.  In 1996 and 1997 the Tax Authority (skattemyndigheten) of the County of Stockholm carried out a tax audit concerning the second applicant's taxi business during the years 1993 and 1994. By decisions of 17 December 1997, the Tax Authority increased the applicants' tax liability. Moreover, as the information supplied by them was found to be incorrect and, therefore, the taxation had been made under a discretionary assessment procedure, the Authority ordered them to pay tax surcharges (skattetillägg, avgiftstillägg). The surcharges levied on the applicants respectively amounted to 11,000 and 8,000 euros (EUR) plus interest for each year.
8.  Following the applicants' appeal to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) in Stockholm, the Tax Authority reconsidered its decisions on 27 September 1999 but did not change them.
9.  By judgments of 29 November 2001, the County Administrative Court upheld the Tax Authority's decisions concerning the first applicant. On the same date, the court struck out the cases concerning the second applicant owing to the bankruptcy. The applicants appealed against the courts' judgments and decisions.
10.  By a decision of 2 March 2004, the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Stockholm found that the second applicant had legal capacity to act as a party in the taxation proceedings. Accordingly, the cases concerning the company were referred back to the County Administrative Court for examination.
11.  By judgments of 16 November 2004, the County Administrative Court upheld the Tax Authority's decisions concerning the second applicant. The company's appeal was dismissed on formal grounds by the Administrative Court of Appeal on 21 February 2005. The court noted that the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) (RÅ 2003 ref. 53) had found that a dissolved company could not claim a right to a review of tax surcharges in two court instances pursuant to the provisions of the Convention. Having regard to the Supreme Administrative Court's finding, the second applicant did not appeal against the appellate court's decision.
12.  Also on 21 February 2005, the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the County Administrative Court's judgments of 29 November 2001 concerning the first applicant. On 3 January 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the first applicant leave to appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 5 September 2000 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of an organised criminal gang and involvement in kidnapping on behalf of that organisation. On 8 September 2000 he was remanded in custody.
6.  On 18 October 2000 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and twenty‑one other persons on the above-mentioned charges.
7.  On 6 November 2000 the criminal proceedings against the applicant and the twenty-one other accused commenced before the Istanbul State Security Court. Eighteen hearings were held in total. Throughout the proceedings the applicant’s lawyer repeatedly requested that the applicant be released during trial, but those requests were dismissed at the end of each hearing by way of an interim decision using an identical expression, namely “having regard to the nature of the offence with which he is charged and the state of the evidence”.
8.  On a number of occasions the applicant’s lawyer objected to the interim decisions of the Istanbul State Security Court extending the applicant’s detention, and in each case the objections were further dismissed by the Istanbul State Security Court using the aforementioned identical expression.
9.  On 11 March 2004 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him, in total, to 27 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
10.  On 20 April 2005 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the first-instance court’s judgment in respect of the applicant’s membership of an organised criminal gang, but quashed the judgment in respect of the sentence imposed on the applicant for kidnapping.
11.  On 1 August 2005 the case was referred back to the Istanbul Assize Court.
12.  On 10 November 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court decided to release the applicant pending trial. He was accordingly released the next day.
13.  On 26 February 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for, in total, twelve years, eight months and fifteen days.
14.  The case is still pending before the Court of Cassation.
6.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1947 respectively and live in Sofia.
7.  In April 1979 the two applicants and the second applicant’s mother bought from the Sofia municipality a four-room apartment of 121 square metres in the centre of the city. In September 1979 the second applicant’s mother died; her heirs were the second applicant and her brother. In 1993 the second applicant’s brother died; the second applicant was his heir.
8.  The apartment had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1947. In February 1993 the heir of its former pre-nationalisation owner brought proceedings under section 7 of the Restitution Law seeking the nullification of the applicants’ title and the restoration of her own title.
9.  The proceedings ended by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 16 February 2004. The courts found that the applicants’ title was null and void on the ground that the 1979 contract had not been signed by the mayor but by one of his deputies. Although the mayor had been entitled to authorise another person to sign such contracts, he had made no written and explicit authorisation. Furthermore, the initial approval of the sale in 1977 had not been signed by the mayor and had not also been confirmed by the mayor of the region; instead, it had once again been their deputies who had signed.
10.  Later in 2004 the applicants attempted unsuccessfully to have the proceedings reopened.
11.  Immediately after the final judgment in their case, it became possible for the applicants to obtain compensation from the State, in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicants did not avail themselves of this opportunity.
12.  On an unspecified date the applicants vacated the apartment. In July 2005 they were granted the tenancy of a four-room municipal apartment, which they share with their daughter and her husband and son.
13.  The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.
5.  The applicants were born in 1925 and 1946 respectively and live in Sofia.
6.  In 1959 Mr M., the husband of the first applicant and father of the second applicant, purchased from the Sofia municipality a four-room flat which had been nationalised in 1948.
7.  On 22 February 1993 the heirs of the pre-nationalisation owner of the flat brought proceedings under section 7 of the 1992 Law on the Restitution of Ownership of Nationalised Real Property (the Restitution Law) seeking the annulment of the applicants’ title. Initially, however, their action was directed against the first applicant and Mr M. Finding that this did not represent a valid claim against the second applicant, and in view of the fact that no such claim had been brought within the time-limit indicated in the Restitution Law, in a final decision of 22 September 1997 the courts terminated the proceedings against the second applicant.
8.  The Sofia District Court held its first hearing on 23 February 1994. The first applicant had been duly summoned on 29 November 1993 but did not attend.
9.  The Sofia District Court held seventeen more hearings, eight of which, held between 15 February 1995 and 7 October 1996, were adjourned because the first applicant had not been found at her address to be summoned. For the first time a representative of the first applicant attended a hearing on 12 March 1997.
10.  In a judgment of 11 November 1997 the Sofia District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ action. On 19 January 1999 the Sofia City Court upheld the lower court’s judgment.
11.  The plaintiffs appealed. In a judgment of 19 October 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation reversed that decision and referred the case back to the Sofia City Court, holding that the latter had applied the law wrongly.
12.  On 30 June 2000 the Sofia City Court gave a judgment finding against the first applicant and ordering her to surrender possession of the flat to the plaintiffs.
13.  The first applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation. In a final judgment of 27 November 2001 the latter court upheld the Sofia City Court’s judgment.
5.  In 1987 the first applicant purchased from the Sofia municipality a three-room apartment of 102 square metres.
6.  The property had become State owned by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following years.
7.  Originally, the nationalised apartment had been bigger. Not later than 1968 it had been divided into two apartments. One of them had been sold to an individual, Mr. V., in 1968 and the second one to the first applicant in 1987.
8.  In 1993, shortly after the enactment of the Restitution Law, the former pre-nationalisation owners brought proceedings under section 7 of that Law against the first applicant.
9.  The proceedings ended by final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 13 January 2003.
10.  The courts examined the evidence and rejected, in reasoned decisions, the first applicant’s argument that the claim under section 7 had been brought after 23 February 1993 – the date of expiry of the relevant statutory time-limit.
11.  Dealing with the case on the merits, the courts declared the 1987 contract null and void and restored the plaintiffs’ ownership of the apartment on the basis of two arguments: 1) the procedure for dividing an apartment into two apartments had not been observed by Mr V. and the municipality in 1968 or earlier, and 2) a relevant document concerning the 1987 sale, a tenancy order, had not been signed by the mayor personally, as required by law, but by another official at the municipality.
12.  Until April 2003, within three months of the final judgment in the case under section 7 of the Restitution Law, it was possible for the first applicant to obtain compensation from the State, in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The first applicant did not avail herself of this opportunity.
13.  As the first applicant did not vacate the apartment voluntarily, in December 2003 the owners brought rei vindicatio proceedings against her and her son, the second applicant, who apparently also lived in the flat. These proceedings ended by final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 20 February 2008 ordering the applicants to vacate the flat. In December 2008, the first applicant informed the Court that she had not vacated the property and that the second applicant did not live there.
14.  In May 2008 the first applicant petitioned the regional governor with requests to provide her with a State-owned flat or, alternatively, with compensation bonds. In December 2008 the first applicant informed the Court that she had not received a reply.
6.  The applicants were born in 1953, 1975 and 1974 respectively and live in Sofia. The first applicant is the mother of the second and the third applicants.
7.  In 1984 the first applicant bought from the Sofia municipality a two‑room apartment of 61 square metres.
8.  The apartment had been confiscated by the State from Mr S.M. who in 1983 had been convicted of espionage and treason and sentenced to imprisonment and confiscation of his property. In a judgment of 20 April 1990 the Supreme Court quashed Mr S.M.’s conviction finding that the courts had breached the relevant procedural rules.
9.  In 1997 Mr S.M. brought rei vindicatio proceedings against the first applicant.
10.  In a final judgment of 16 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation allowed the claim. It found that the contract by virtue of which the first applicant had acquired the flat at issue in 1984 had not been signed by the mayor, as required by law, but by another official in the municipality. This rendered the first applicant’s title null and void ab initio. She could not have acquired the apartment through adverse possession either as prior to 1996 State property could not be acquired in this way. The apartment had therefore remained State-owned and the judgment of 20 April 1990 had had the effect of restoring Mr S.M.’s title over it.
11.  In August 2004 the applicants, who all lived in the apartment, vacated it. The first and second applicants rented another apartment and moved in there.
12.  In April 2004 they applied for the tenancy of a municipal apartment and in June 2007 were offered a two-room flat in the outskirts of the city. They refused the offer.
13.  In May 2004 the first applicant applied to receive compensation bonds under the 1997 Law on Compensation for Owners of Nationalised Real Property. According to the latest information available to the Court, as of October 2008, the regional governor had not yet decided on the request.